Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethical Exchange Behavior:

Cornerstones of the Ethical Network Reputation

Päivi Jokela

Turku School of Economics,

University of Turku

Department of Marketing

FI-20014 Turun yliopisto

Finland

email: paivi.jokela@utu.fi

Track: “Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Sustainability in Business Networks”

chaired by Halinen, Makkonen, Raman and Rollins

Keywords: Ethics, ethical reputation, corporate social responsibility, business networks

Competitive paper

2

Abstract

Studies encompassing ethical reputation in the business sector often refer to corporate social

responsibility (CSR) as its foundation, widely recognizing the significance of creating value

for firms targeting consumer markets, but failing to address the network-wide effects and

creation paths in a B-2-B context. Ethical exchange behavior as a reputation mechanism has

been approached mainly from the negative side, focusing on opportunism. Only recently,

positive exchange behavior has been suggested as a source of reputation. By expanding the

definition of reputation from individual companies to include partnerships and networks, this

conceptual study suggests that ethical reputation is formed by these two elements: corporate

social responsibility and ethical exchange behavior.

Ethical reputation, in terms of CSR, has received attention because of the increasing reliance

on global supply systems. It is suggested that ethical exchange behavior, as a reputation

element, can be used to signal the attractiveness of a network or an actor and garner valuable

external resources that support its competitiveness. The elements of ethical reputation are

explored from the network perspective. Ethical reputation, as a function of CSR, is influenced

by each network actor. Ethical exchange behavior, conceptualized with equity theory and

approached via relational and network theories culminates in fairness in economic and social

terms.

INTRODUCTION

Corporate reputation (CR) has been recognized as an important asset for businesses because

of its great potential for value creation (Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997; Maden et al., 2012;

Roberts and Dowling, 2001). For this reason, corporations are investing more heavily in

promoting their positive brand and corporate image while attempting to highlight their

equitable strategies and social orientation (Christopher & Gaudenzi, 2009). A visible

involvement in corporate social responsibility (CSR), i.e. launching programs to promote

ethical conduct in the supply chain and taking environmental initiatives, has been found to be

useful in fulfilling this goal (Boyd et al., 2007). The attention paid to corporate ethics has

thus become an integral element of CR (Hillenbrand & Money, 2007). This is evidenced by

growing corporate awareness of how critical ethical conduct is in the eyes of customers and

other stakeholder groups, such as investors and society as a whole (Hoejmose, Roehrich &

Grosvold, 2013; Mutch & Aitken, 2009).

CSR, commonly approached via the stakeholder theory, (van Marrewijk, 2004; Lindfelt &

Törnroos, 2006; Neville, Bell & Bülent, 2005) can be regarded as a response to the new

reputational challenges that have emerged as several major industries now rely on the

extensive use of outsourcing and multi-tier global supply networks. It has become obvious

that ethical concerns in these supply networks can have widespread effects especially on the

brand of a highly visible network actor, such as IKEA, Nike, Gap and Wal-Mart (Amaeshi,

Osuji & Nnodim, 2008; Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; Boyd et al., 2007). A shift is

taking place from overemphasis on the corporate reputation to heightened awareness of the

“network reputation” that is created collectively by the network actors. The downside of this

collective reputation is the loss of control by any one actor within the network actor; negative

publicity can paint the entire network with the same tainted brush. Media reporting

concerning business ethics in general, and possible breaches in ethics in particular, tends to

be unbalanced. Positive developments in supply networks can pass by practically unnoticed,

3

whereas any scandal is widely reported with the media often providing a quick yet not always

fair, trial for the parties involved (Guo, et al., 2012).

CSR has been discussed widely in the literature from the supply chain perspective (Amaeshi,

et al., 2008; Boyd et al. 2007; Hoejmose et al. 2013), emphasizing its relevancy for firms

with offerings that target consumer markets. Despite the relevancy of the multi-actor

environment, the network perspective has been used only on a minor scale (Lindfelt and

Törnroos 2006). The industrial network approach complements the relevant supply chain

literature, thus extending the examination of the phenomena and providing insights that go

beyond dyadic relationships.

This study suggests that ethical exchange behavior as a reputation element concerns every

exchange relationship and that ethical reputation is not only a matter of CSR. In earlier

research, opportunism has been described as a mechanism producing a negative reputation

that can alienate firms and prevent them from cooperating with each other (Hawkings, 2013;

Hill, 1990; Wathne & Heide, 2000; Williamson, 1985). This choice is logical, since it is more

straightforward to study opportunism than positive exchange behavior influencing reputation.

Various forms of opportunism are easily discernible, (Wathne & Heide, 2000) whereas the

view of what actually constitutes ethical exchange behavior and what are the results of this

behavior are still emerging (Goebel et al. 2010; Ivens & Pardo, 2010). Although opportunism

is not present in every relationship, examining exchange behavior from a positive angle can

open new avenues for understanding its reputational effects for B-2-B actors. The model of

Money et al. (2010) highlights this shift by including elements that are vital for business

relationships; mutual understanding, synergy and flexibility of interaction is proposed to third

parties as an integral part of the effectiveness of these business partnerships. The relational

characteristics used in reputation studies include the underlying premise that positive

reputation is based on ethical exchange behavior in the B-2-B context. Trust, benevolence,

loyalty and commitment among the business partners produce reputational outcomes that also

can have monetary value (Arend, 2009; Christopher & Gaudenzi, 2009; Gundland, Achrol &

Menzer, 1995; Money et al., 2010).

By suggesting that ethical exchange behavior forms another element in ethical reputation, this

study draws on the relational view and the equity theory which put forth the notion that

ethical behavior rests on economic and social fairness in the relationships (Greenberg, 1987;

Gundlach & Murphy, 1993; Ivens, 2004; Luo, 2009). The study aims at conceptualizing

which elements of ethical behavior are relevant for ethical reputation. Although ethical

behavior in a network context has received limited attention so far, (Melé, 2009; Lindfelt &

Törnroos 2006) it is suggested that the study of interconnected relationships can contribute to

understanding how these connections influence the way that ethical behavior emerges and

spreads within networks.

By emphasizing the significance of ethical reputation for businesses operating in networked

environment, it is proposed that the structural elements of ethical reputation are CSR and

ethical exchange behavior. This study aims at exploring and analyzing their characteristics,

their development and the significance of their outcomes from the network perspective. The

focus of this study is firstly, from the part of CSR to identify the role of the network in

creating and maintaining ethical reputation. Secondly, in addition to the examination of the

key dimensions of ethical behavior that make up ethical reputation, the study also examines

the outcomes that should encourage firms and networks considering and developing ethical

reputation. The study discusses ethical reputation in terms of network life cycle, suggesting

which phases are relevant for each reputation element. The division between existing network

4

actors and potential ones, as well as other stakeholders, helps to clarify who are the targets of

each ethical reputation element. Clarification of the nature of the concepts is reviewed in this

study. Due to their interrelatedness, the boundaries between the two, CSR and ethical

behavior, are sometimes blurred when they are used in B-2-B relationships and networks

(Goebel et al., 2010; Money et al., 2010; Raman, 2011). CSR refers to any planned activities

that are undertaken with the express purpose of addressing the ethics related matters in the

network and operating in a sustainable manner. Ethical exchange behavior, on the other hand,

refers to relationships, their processes and outcomes involving social and economic

dimensions.

This conceptual study uses examples from the business press to describe firms’ activities and

business environment influences on their ethical reputation; these examples are used to

illustrate the theoretical concepts of the study. The firms in these examples are operating in

the networked environment. However, since the reputational effects often highlight the most

visible network actors, these same network actors also receive the most attention in our

examples. This paper has been structured in the following way: the proposed elements of

ethical reputation are discussed separately, the first section focuses on CSR and the second

section discusses the ethical exchange in B-2-B contexts. The third section presents

conclusions and proposals for future studies.

ELEMENTS OF ETHICAL REPUTATION – A NETWORK APPROACH

Elements of ethical reputation - CSR

Corporate reputation has been recognized as a valuable intangible asset of strategic

importance that has become increasingly significant relative to increasing the objective of

customer loyalty (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Fombrun, 1996; Maden, et al. 2012).

According to different definitions, corporate reputation refers to the overall evaluation of a

company by its stakeholders, who decide whether or not to hold the firm in high regard and

who assess its relative standing among its corporate rivals (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001; Shenkar &

Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997). Reputation can be evaluated based on personal experience, word-of-

mouth or media reports and via various corporate activities and their outcomes, such as

financial standing, marketing, human relations and positioning against competitors. How

stakeholders interpret the organizational actions can provide the corporation different

reputations based on the stakeholders’ implied interests (Bromley, 2000; Fombrun &

Shanley, 1990; Fombrun, 1996).

The stakeholders are increasingly evaluating the ethical stance of an organization; the

significance of the ethical dimension of corporate reputation is put forward by the recognition

of the CR and CSR as similar and overlapping concepts. Apart from philanthropy on its own

merits, the CSR concept is broadened to encompass responsible conduct in day-to-day

operating practices and strategies as well as its impact on society and the environment

(Hillenbrand & Money, 2007; Mutch & Aitken, 2009). A firm’s interest is to protect and

enhance its reputation; it is motivated to engage in CSR for the purpose of creating welfare,

positive impact and credibility with respect to key stakeholder relationships (Barnett, 2007;

Hoejmose et al., 2013). Vilanova et al. (2009) further suggest that when CSR will be

evaluated by the financial sector as a criterion to assess companies, then CSR will become a

valued and viable aspect of strategic business planning.

5

CSR in networks - competitiveness and reputation protection

Industrial Networks Theory focuses on describing and analyzing business networks that are

comprised of interconnected exchange relationships (Axelsson & Easton, 1992; Anderson,

Håkansson & Johanson, 1994). The business relationships, whether direct or indirect,

influence the business actors and determine their very existence in the business markets

(Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Ford & McDowell, 1999). Relationships are formed and

maintained for the purpose of resource integration; it is vital for the business actors to gain

access to other actors’ resources and modify them in order to provide new resource

constellations (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). Thus, the industrial network approach receives

resources residing partly outside individual firms’ boundaries, which has implications for the

way in which networks will maintain close cooperation among the network actors.

The networked reality in supply chains is described as multi-tier supply networks competing

against other networks rather than just individual firms (Achrol, 1997; Christopher &

Gaudenzi, 2009). This has changed fundamentally the way corporate reputation is perceived.

Reputational concerns have moved beyond an individual firm and are now out of its direct

control, while moving toward relationships, and networks. Networks, often led by the brand

owner, can deliberately develop and manage their CSR activities in order to assure the

relevant stakeholders that their actions are ethical in terms of labor conditions and

environmental protection (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; Boyd et al., 2007). Supply

chains acting in a socially responsible way can be used as a means of enhancing brands,

differentiating themselves from the competitors and influencing the purchasing decisions of

individual customers. Customers are more aware of the ethical issues surrounding to goods

and their origin and have also increasingly started to demand more ethical conduct from

business leaders (Paulin & Ferguson, 2010; Vilanova et al., 2009).

Therefore, according to Hoejmose et al. (2013) ethical reputation is even more crucial for B-

2-C companies, since they also pass on consumer expectations and demands to other business

actors in their supply networks. According to this study, customers are able to distinguish

between real actions and “window dressing.” For this reason, B-2-C companies do not only

use various screening mechanisms to verify and enforce the standards of their partner

companies, but also create ways to convince the customers on the ethicalness of their

suppliers. Among the instruments used are social labeling, which informs the public of the

firm’s’ adherence to an established set of criteria, e.g. ethically grown a raw materials and

codes of conduct that inform the stakeholders about the observance and enforcement of

certain policies in the firm’s production and general operations (Boiral 2003). Practicing CSR

has been found valid and purposeful in reputation protection, but it has been challenging to

achieve any further competitive advantage with reputation enhancement (Hoejmose et al.,

2013). By deliberately choosing and communicating ethical strategies, firms simultaneously

take a calculated reputational risk if they are not being able to deliver what they promise in

terms of ethical conduct. In cases like Zara, they are exposed and draw unwanted attention if

there should be any scandals revealing the polar opposite of the touted highly ethical and

moral standards (Roper 2012).

The risk of damaging one’s ethical reputation by the irresponsible actions taken by actor in

the network, however, is not limited to the use of reputation as a competitive weapon in

business-to-consumer firms. The gap existing between the desired ethical standards and the

actual conditions in the supply networks (Boyd et al., 2007; Christopher & Gaudenzi, 2009)

6

makes it an actual concern for B-2-B companies as well. Even companies without direct

contact with end customers and outside the domain of social and environmentally sensitive

industries, e.g. technology companies, have chosen to follow responsible supply chain

management activities to protect their reputation (Hoejmose et al. 2013).

Ethical network reputation is constructed by the network actors

The network effects concerning ethical reputation manifest in the way that outcomes are

divided. While each network actor influences the ethical reputation and the way it is

perceived by the stakeholders, the consequences are not evenly distributed by the network

actors and that the most visible member of the network carries, at least momentarily, the most

reputational damage from any harm done by the supply network (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen,

2009). Furthermore, even if there are many visible and reputable companies involved in a

given scandal, the negative publicity can also be divided in an unequal way among them. For

example, during the Foxconn case, Apple received a great deal of negative publicity,

although it was only one of the many well-known customers that Foxconn had, in addition to

Hewlett-Packard and Dell. A deeper look into the matter points toward employees’

psychological problems being behind their crisis rather than human rights violations (Guo,

Hsu, Holton & Jeong, 2012). This case also demonstrates that the public at large may not be

interested in what is the ultimate “truth” behind such events, but that the first impression that

is portrayed and received by the public will ultimately prevail. For the firms that plan and

develop their CSR, this implies a constant element of uncertainty in this process.

Negative media attention and consumer boycott can have a negative impact on an individual

company and the tarnished network reputation can be difficult and expensive to repair for any

party in the network (Christopher & Gaudenzi, 2009). Consequently, the whole network can

suffer financially from scandals. The appeal of subcontractors may diminish in the eyes of

potential new customers who hesitate to get their names involved in similar proceedings.

Because of the inherent dangers and low standards, the most visible business actors are most

often those initiating improvements in supply chain practices, which, requires substantial

monitoring of the suppliers (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; Boyd et al., 2007).

Developing and applying CSR policies requires cooperation from the network actors and

their collective efforts in establishing and maintaining the network’s reputation. According to

Boyd et al. (2007), in an ideal situation, each supply chain company understands the need for

the ethical sourcing programs for the express purpose of improving its competitive position.

Equity theory, which is based on social psychology and which includes motivations in an

organizational context (Adams 1965; Cook & Messick 1978; Greenberg 1987), introduces

such concepts as distributive, procedural and interactional justice. These have been discussed

to a greater extent in studies defining ethical exchange behavior (Luo, 2006; Luo, 2009) and

will be re-visited in the chapter discussing that topic. The framework based on equity theory

emphasizes fairness in economic terms, i.e. fair sharing of the outcome in relation to the

input, also known as distributive justice. Procedural justice, having each actor’s voice heard

in any process (Leventhal, 1980), has also been found relevant for establishing a foundation

for CSR programs (Boyd et al., 2007). Interactional justice represents the interpersonal aspect

of justice and acting according to the accepted behavioral norms (Luo, 2009). For the

purpose of integrating the suppliers into the programs, the firms initiating them need good

communication channels. Code of conduct, which is the most visible tool used by

multinational companies, should be shared in an open and understandable manner. They

should also consider the views of the suppliers in the program development (Andersen &

Skjoett-Larsen, 2009, Boyd et al., 2007). This has been implemented by the furniture giant

7

IKEA. Instead of demanding certain level of quality, price, service and environmental and

social responsibility from its suppliers, IKEA now participates in development alongside the

suppliers (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009). The results of Hoejmose et al. (2013) support

this view, as their respondents point out the importance of aligning corporate strategies with

supply chain strategies and involving everyone, suppliers and customers alike, when CSR

policies and programs are being developed.

Distributive justice in network forms a basis CSR and ethical reputation

A dispersed network creates limitations for managing ethical reputation. A snap judgment

of network leaders who have problems with their suppliers, in spite of their efforts to improve

the situation, can be a one-sided analysis of the situation. Corporations often report

difficulties with influencing their distant counterparts, because the causes for unethical

working conditions are often deeply rooted in the institutional differences that characterize

the societies and communities (Porter, 1990). These inherent differences make the process of

undertaking improvements very slow and uncertain in spite of the thoughtful actions that are

taken. Examples of such cases are Finnish companies Stora Enso and Marimekko-Iittala that

have faced accusations concerning human rights violations of their supply partners located in

Asia. These companies have explained their efforts in earnest of rooting out unethical

activity, but at the same time, they are handicapped by the complexity of accomplishing these

tasks in different cultures. (Stora Enso: Lapsityövoiman kitkeminen vie vuosia, 10.3.2014;

Stora Enson tiedote 3/14; Juvonen, 2013). Thus, culturally bound values and ethical standards

deviating from those of the Western world raise questions as to how far companies actually

can go when trying to improve the situation within the supply network, including several

layers of indirect supplier relationships (Amaeshi et al., 2008; Falkenberg & Falkenberg,

2009).

The network actors that influence how the supply network is doing financially, should,

provide the means for carrying out the CSR policies when necessary. Whether it involves

providing direct support for improvements or revising supplier margins, the bottom line is

that building ethical reputation can be costly, but rebuilding it can be even more costly. This

implies the necessity of moving beyond procedural justice toward distributive

justice. Sharing a code of conduct with suppliers and teaching them the norms of the network

seldom forms a sufficient basis for the implementation of ethical program. Sharing the

economic burden requires the alignment of activities and the investment of time and financial

resources among the supply chain partners (Hoejmose et al., 2013). Goebel et al. (2010) also

point out that customers always have a choice to select suppliers that are oriented toward

sustainability.

The multinationals have begun to understand that when the supply chains are widening, the

setting is unfeasible from the start. The search for low-cost suppliers in remote locations,

often pushed to the edge of being profitable, might not result in finding firms that voluntarily

make ethical issues or the required investments in improvements their top priority. In one an

extreme case, the Bangladesh garment factory fire might have been prevented, if months

before the fatal disaster, the key customer Wal-Mart would not have turned its back on the

Bangladesh suppliers’ plan aimed at improving factory conditions. The customers would

have participated in its financing by paying a higher price for the apparel manufactured by

the Bangladeshi suppliers. Wal-Mart denied the allegations, claiming that the supplier was

working without authorization in that particular factory (Greenhouse, 2012). This case also

demonstrates that statements concerning ethical values do not always lead to ethical behavior

8

with the exchange partners. On the other side of the spectrum, Wal-Mart had started a

program to make its logistics more environmentally friendly (Boyd et al., 2010).

Similarly, Hawkins et al. (2013) found that corporate ethical values are favorably related to

behaving opportunistically, the opposite of the expected outcome and the notion that the

expectation of ethical behavior does not extend to supply partners. Large and highly visible

corporations, in particular, can implement CSR as a strategy to reflect positive corporate

image, but continue to behave unethically toward their suppliers with actions that are

invisible beyond the supply network. Unethical behavior does not need remote supply

networks to manifest; it can be an issue within local relationships and networks, leading to

damages in ethical reputation even without human right violations. According to Santana,

Vaccaro and Wood (2010), the way that networked firms perceive their boundaries influences

how ethically they actually behave in the network. The more that network actors understand

the interdependent nature of business relationships and blurring boundaries of their

organizations, the more likely they are to adopt an ethical approach toward the other network

actors. The basis for CSR and ethical reputation is created by distributive justice – fairness in

economic terms. The following section defines ethical exchange behavior as the second

element of ethical reputation, discusses its network effects and significance of the

reputational outcomes in the B-2-B context. It is suggested that ethical exchange behavior in

network function as a positive reputation mechanism that attracts partners, rather than repels

them, like negative reputation does.

ETHICAL EXCHANGE BEHAVIOR AS AN ELEMENT OF ETHICAL NETWORK

REPUTATION

Ethical behavior in business relationships and networks

Ethical exchange behavior forms the second element of ethical reputation in B-2-B

relationships. So far, it has been studied mainly in the context of dyadic relationships and, to

a lesser extent, in networks. Explicit analysis of what constitutes ethical behavior in

relationships and networks and its outcomes have been an overlooked area within the IMP

and the Industrial Network approach.

The role of informal norms, formal codes, and code enforcement in evaluating the rightness

or wrongness of organizational or industry behavior is highlighted in the Hunt and Vitell

theory of ethics (1986). Ethical behavior is based on the norms arising as a result of shared

values (Boyd & Webb, 2008) and in the business context, it has been defined as actions not

harming others (Robin, 2009). There have been few attempts to conceptualize ethical

behavior in exchange relationships; it has been characterized with such concepts as trust,

equity, responsibility and commitment (Gundlach & Murphy, 1993) and trust, commitment

and diligence (Murphy, Laczniak, & Wood, 2007). These qualities are further supported with

such virtues as respect, honesty and transparency that are present in the social relationships

among firms (Murphy et al., 2007). Furthermore, the IMP literature together with the other

frameworks of relational view also provide references that relational exchange behavior is, at

least to some degree, equivalent to ethical behavior. With such concepts as long-term

orientation, flexibility and adaptation, information sharing, mutuality, and refrain from use of

power in the relationships, these approaches describe the relationships in positive terms,

emphasizing cooperation and working on common goals in harmony (Gadde, Huemer &

Håkansson, 2003; Gundlach, Achrol, & Mentzer, 1995; Ivens, 2004; Macneil, 1980; Paulin &

Ferguson, 2010).

9

Equity theory (Adams 1965; Greenberg, 1988; Cook & Messick, 1983) has brought forward a

framework of parallel ideas for studying ethical exchange. While distributive justice focuses

on economic fairness, social fairness is manifested through procedural and interactive justice.

In spite of the differences between these approaches, e.g. in terms of unit of analysis, as the

equity theory has emerged only recently in the inter-organizational studies (Luo, 2006), it is

suggested that their cross-fertilization can be used to develop an understanding of what

constitutes ethical exchange behavior. For example equity, which refers to fairness in

economic terms, has been discussed context of relationships (Gundlach & Murphy, 1993;

Johnston & Low, 2006) can be traced back to the equity theory (Cook & Messick, 1983).

Summarizing these approaches produces a two-dimensional framework that subtracts the

existing concepts according to their contents, whether they be economic or social. The

division, however, is not clear-cut the contents are partly overlapping as concepts with social

contents can be tied to concepts of economic nature or equity formed through social

interaction. Furthermore, the approaches mentioned are based on different theoretical

underpinnings and therefore not fully coherent for comparison. The following Figure 2

presents this summary. The concepts are grouped in the figure according to the approaches

they present but also demonstrate the links connecting them. They include both process-

related features and their outcomes. It is suggested that the ethical reputation is based on

ethical behavior in the network can be examined from the positive side as well as the

negative, contrary to the earlier studies on opportunism.

Figure 1: Ethical exchange behavior creating ethical reputation

When the examination of ethical behavior is shifted toward networks, it is suggested that the

dyadic level definitions are still valid, as networks are constituted by these very same

relationships. However, the heterogeneity of relationships and the network characteristics,

connectedness, network positions, and asymmetries influence the way that ethical behavior is

mutuality

flexibility

interactional

justice

equity, fairness

in sharing

the outcomes

distributive

justice

honesty

transparency

Economic Social

Ethical exchange behavior

trust

commitment

Network

effects

Ethical reputation

respect

diligence

empathy

Equity

theory

Relational

view, IMP

procedural

justice

10

spread within the network. Consequently they also have effect on how the network ethical

reputation is created and perceived. The following implications are produced:

1) Due to the heterogeneity of the actors (Corsaro, Cantù & Tunisi, 2012) and the

underlying norms and values in the relationships (Boyd & Webb, 2008) it is suggested that

the ethical behavior in the network is most regularly not uniform between different

relationships. Consequently, ethical behavior varies even across the relationships of the same

actors.

2) The connectedness of the relationships within the network refers to the contingencies

between the exchange relationships - occurrences in one relationship influence in varying

degrees the other relationships (Halinen & Törnroos, 1998; Anderson, Håkansson &

Johanson, 1994). Ethical behavior in the relationships can spread toward other relationships

of the network through the connected relationships.

3) This behavior can be mediated by the positions of the network actors. The position is

influenced by the resources that the company possesses and it can be a result of asymmetries

that can elevate a certain network actor to a leader in the network (Turnbull, Ford &

Cunningham, 1996). Power imbalance is common within networks, as most relationships are

asymmetric in terms of power and dependence (Kumar, 1996). It is also likely that in a

network, one actor holds several different power positions as it can be influenced by a

dominant actor but also has the ability to dominate others.

Ethical exchange behavior forms a basis for ethical reputation – focus on business

actors

Approaching firm’s ethical reputation through positive exchange behavior has been preceded

by theories concerning the impact of unethical behavior on reputation. The literature on

transaction cost economics in particular describes reputation as a function that controls

opportunism, which is defined as drawing benefits based on self-interest with guile

(Williamson, 1985; Hill, 1990). Opportunism is found in many forms: cheating, breach of

contract, distorting data, purposefully confusing transactions, making false threats and

promises, disguising attributes or preferences and withholding information (Hawkings, 2013;

Wathne & Heide, 2000). From the viewpoint of ethical reputation, the division of

opportunism into strong-form opportunism, which takes place when firms violate explicit

contractual agreements and weak-form opportunism, which violates unwritten relational

norms (Luo, 2006) has different consequences. Contractual breaches are more visible and

have more substantial negative impact on reputation, because they often involve financial

settlements (Hawkings, 2013), whereas a breach of relational norms can hurt the parties and

their relationship but does not necessarily affect any third parties in terms of reputational

perceptions. However, opportunism and ethical exchange behavior are not always exactly the

different sides of the same coin. They can co-exist in the same relationships; one party can

breach relational norms continuously, but be committed to promote fair sharing, or vice

versa. Moreover, although it might seem rare, opportunism might not exist at all in certain

scenarios.

Although it is a matter for future studies to entertain, exactly how much network actors and

other parties actually consciously and actively pay attention to the values, norms and overall

ethicality of their counterparts’ actions, it has been suggested that business actors observe and

11

label other business organizations based on their actions. Because these actions have ethical

content, they therefore develop an understanding concerning how ethically or unethically

each of them behaves in terms of distributive, procedural or interactional justice. For

example, according to MacMillan et al. (2005) business actors as stakeholders can give other

organizations attributes based on their experience; they can be perceived as good listeners,

communicators or providers of benefits. Although Money et al. (2010) do not explicitly refer

to ethical reputation when modelling partnership reputation with relational concepts, the

discussion in the previous section aims at establishing the linkage between ethical and

relational behavior makes the connection between the two. Based on these suggestions, this

study proposes that ethical reputation can be approached with concepts based on positive

exchange behavior, its economic and social elements.

Business actors evaluating reputation, its economic and social dimensions

Ethical reputation in terms of ethical exchange behavior can serve as a valuable source of

information for business actors, particularly when no other sources are available (Nunlee,

2003). Although ethical behavior, its manifestations and its relevance for exchange

relationships and networks is assumed to vary among different industries, consequently

ethical reputation can be more relevant in some exchange contexts than others. Actors

considering ethical exchange vital for their business should therefore screen potential new

partner candidates in terms of adherence to a prescribed ethical reputation (Dadoub, 2000).

The use of reputation as a source of information requires that the parties are willing to share

their experiences or that the reputational information can be obtained from an external source

(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Nunlee, 2003). Strict requirements for non-disclosure

agreements in certain industries can considerably limit the freedom of the business actors

involved to express any inequity they may have experienced in their relationships (Kuusela,

2013). For this reason, there are reservations concerning the perceived reputation as it does

not necessarily accurately reflect the real state of the ethics in the network, misleading actors

to cooperate with parties that they would otherwise avoid (Nunlee, 2003). Ethical reputation

manifested in ethical exchange behavior can be particularly meaningful as a partner selection

criterion in the network formation phase or in general every time a new actor is seeking to

join a network.

When ethical reputation is evaluated based on ethical exchange behavior, it is suggested that

fairness in economic terms will be more essential than solid social relationships. This premise

is based on findings of Brown et al. (2006), who examined economic and social justice and

their significance in a supplier-customer relationship. Fairness in economic terms was

unsurprisingly more important for the suppliers in creating satisfaction than good social

relationships. Boyd & Webb (2008) suggest that with respect to ethics in business

relationships, fairness in resource contribution and decision-making and implementation

concerning each partner’s performance receive the most attention. The perceived equity and

distributive justice can fundamentally determine the attractiveness of a network or a business

actor. However, due to the varying network positions and power asymmetries, the economic

dimension may not carry equal importance for each actor.

Beyond the network formation phase, it has also been suggested that reputation continues

making an impact on the actors after they have started the exchange (Christoph & Gaudenzi,

2009; Money, et al. 2010). Perceived fairness in terms of outcome and distribution of rewards

can make the exchange partners view the relationships as beneficial and prepare them to

reciprocate additional and relationship specific investments (Griffith, Harvey & Lusch,

2006). A positive reputation can facilitate decision-making concerning these investments and

12

increase willingness of the actors to adapt in uncertain circumstances (Heide & John, 1992).

Conversely, a negative reputation can make partners hesitant for long-term commitments.

Those actors that feel they are being treated unfairly may attempt to compensate the

perceived imbalance by decreasing outputs, altering outcomes or withdrawing from the

relationship (Duffy et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2012). Several examples can be drawn from the

automotive industry, where the automakers require their supply network to get involved in

joint development programs that improve processes and enhance product quality, but that

simultaneously create substantial costs for the suppliers. If they are assured that the

investment benefits them as well, the willingness of the supplier to join such programs

increases (Christopher & Gaudenzi, 2010).

In spite of the proposed dominance of the economic dimension in ethical reputation, fairness

in social terms should, by no means, receive marginal attention. Ethical reputation can

provide information concerning conflicts, which can result from be differences in the code of

conduct (Nijhof et al., 2003). Fear of conflicts and related costs based on ethical reputation

can be perceived a threat and decrease the willingness to cooperate with such actors (Drover

et al. 2013). According to Money et al. (2010) positive reputation keeps on producing

positive behavior and that positive reputation facilitates setting behavioral norms throughout

the network. Ethical reputation can be used to evaluate the actors’ likelihood to comply with

rules and terms of agreement (Christopher & Gaudenzi, 2009; Nunlee, 2003). Partnerships

and networks known for their fair ethical conduct in terms of social dimension can facilitate

exchange by creating an atmosphere where network partners feel comfortable to cooperate

(Money et al., 2010) and openly share their resources (Arend, 2009; Bennett & Gabriel,

2001). This might be a necessary precondition for such short-term project networks that are

set up for completing a pre-specified task (Möller, Svahn & Rajala, 2005).

Reputational effects concern technological cooperation, which in essence, consists of sharing

resources that are vulnerable for opportunistic use and cannot be fully safeguarded by the use

of contracts. Similarly, parties may lack the familiarity and trust that are required to perform

efficient knowledge transfer (Kotabe, Xavier & Hiroshi, 2003). Furthermore, ethical

reputation has significance when any strategic sensitive information has to be shared with

partners, including long-term forecasting and more proprietary information e.g. future

product designs (Palay, 1984).

13

Figure 2: Elements of ethical reputation

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

With the purpose of adding new perspectives to the emerging research of ethics in B-2-B

context, this conceptual study aimed at exploring what constitutes ethical reputation of firms

and networks. As summarized in Figure 2 above, this study presents the ethical reputation of

networks as an outcome with two main elements: corporate social responsibility and ethical

exchange behavior. The former includes consciously and deliberately managed and

implemented policies and programs, targeted specifically for protecting and enhancing

reputation over corporate and network life cycle. CSR is mostly a concern of individual firms

and networks operating in a global context and highlighting its significance in today’s

business world for a great number of businesses but also for their stakeholder groups, from

customers to society as a whole.

The overview on approaches of ethical behavior of business actors suggests that, in spite of

their differences, they have connecting points: equity theory, as well as relational approaches

emphasize economic fairness and mutuality in the processes that connect the business actors.

Although ethical exchange behavior is less recognized as such, it nonetheless forms an

essential reputation mechanism in B-2-B context. In the network formation phase, it can

reflect network attractiveness in terms of equity or distributive justice as economic fairness is

expected to overrun the social dimensions. Still, the two are interconnected, as the social

dimensions impact not only working atmosphere, but conflicts and their resolution have

financial consequences.

This study further suggests that after the network formation, the emphasis shifts toward the

development and maintenance of CSR element in networks, thereby forming a vital

reputational element. The most influential actor often takes the initiative but all the relevant

network actors are involved. The process should be built on procedural justice, but with

consideration to distributive justice as a basis that provides the means for taking care of the

relevant social and environmental issues. A connection to the ethical exchange behavior is

established, because fairness experienced in terms of sharing rewards and outcomes is one

way of promoting social responsibility and ethical reputation. Developing ethical reputation

is a long-term investment and should be treated as such. From a network actor’s point of

Ethical

reputation

Network-wide CSR Ethical exchange behavior: ethical norms, social and

economic fairness

Networks:

Business actors

Stakeholders: Customers, business

actors investors,

society

14

view, internalizing the perception of the network as a competitive unit can contribute to the

actor’s willingness to take individual actions that benefit the network as a whole, especially

CSR or ethical exchange behavior is concerned.

In spite of the challenges that are inherent to the study of any ethics related topic, originating

from its sensitive nature and the subjective evaluation of business actors as to what defines

ethical behavior, there are several topics that are relevant to the future research of business

networks. Firstly, any examination should be orientated toward empirical observations on

ethical reputation and the criticality of its constituents for the business actors using it to

evaluate partner and network attractiveness. Future research might focus on examining

empirically the roles of equity and distributive justice as reputation elements in the network

context. The study on partner attractiveness should assess the relationship between the two

constituents, CSR and ethical exchange behavior and their relative importance when partner

selection criteria are being set. The differing network positions of the actors can be used as a

starting point. Earlier research provides initial suggestions concerning how critical a good

corporate reputation is in terms of CSR can be for the firms leading the network and shaping

its development. Important questions to address would be how do the actors perceive ethical

reputation and its elements in the network, and how does their position influence their

perceptions? A study integrating the views of all relevant network actors would contribute to

the understanding of ethical reputation as a mechanism, thus determining how exchange

relationships are formed and maintained in a network context.

Furthermore, networks have been classified based on the rate of technological change

(Möller, Svahn and Rajala, 2005). Although established and emerging networks can include

actors from various industries, the division to high and low tech industries can be used to

roughly characterize the difference between them. This division would form a basis for

comparing the criticalness of ethical reputation across different industries and its effects

within the networks of that particular industry. While hardly any industry exists where firms

can afford to ignore their corporate reputation, this does not mean that they would

consciously be monitoring the ethicalness of their exchange behavior. Some industries exist

where ethical behavior is not the norm. However, observing the differences between ethical

reputation elements at the industry level could point out industries and networks where

ethical exchange behavior as a reputational element is emphasized and where its use has

brought clear benefits to the network actors.

15

References:

Adams, J. (1965) “Inequity in Social Exchange”, In Berkowich, L. (Eds.) Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, 267-299.

Amaeshi, K. M., Osuji, O. K., Nnodim, P. (2008) “Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of

global brands: A boundaryless responsibility? Clarifications, exceptions and implications”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 81, No. 1, 223-234.

Achrol, R. S. (1997) “Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: toward a

network paradigm.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 1, 56-71.

Andersen, M. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009) “Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains”,

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 75-86.

Anderson, J., Håkansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1994), "Dyadic business relationships within a

business network context", Journal of Marketing, 58, No. 4, 1-15.

Arend, R. J. (2009) “Reputation for cooperation: Contingent benefits in alliance activity”, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4, 371–385.

Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (Eds.) (1992), Industrial Networks: a new view of reality, Routledge:

London.

Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (2001) “Reputation, trust and supplier commitment: The case of shipping

company/seaport relations”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 6, 424-438.

Boiral, O. (2003) “The certification of corporate conduct: Issues and prospects”, International Labor

Review, Vol. 142, No. 3, 317-340.

Boyd, E., Spekman, R., Kamauff, J. and Wehane P. (2007) “Corporate social responsibility in global

supply chains: a procedural justice perspective”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40, No. 3, 341–356.

Boyd, D. E. and Webb, K. L. (2008) “Interorganizational ethical conflict within alliances: A

conceptual framework and research propositions”, Journal of Business to Business Marketing, Vol.

15, No. 1, 1–24.

Bromley, D. (2000) “Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image and reputa-

tion,” Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 240–252.

Brown, J. R., Cobb, A. T. and Lusch, R. F. (2006) “The roles played by interorganizational contracts

and justice in marketing channel relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, No. 2, 166–

175.

Christopher, M. and Gaudenzi, B. (2009) “Exploiting knowledge across networks through reputation

management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38, No. 2, 191–197.

Cook, K. and Messick, D. (1983) “Psychological and sociological perspectives on distributive justice:

Convergent, divergent, and parallel lines,” In David M. Messick and Karen S. Cook (Eds.) Equity

theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1-12.

Corsaro D., Cantù C.& Tunisini A (2012) “Actors' Heterogeneity in Innovation Networks”, Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 41, No. 5, 780-789.

Daboub, A. (2002) “Strategic alliances, network organizations, and ethical responsibility”, SAM

Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 67, No. 4, 40–48.

16

Drover, W., Wood, M. S. and Fassin Y. (2013) “Take the money or run? Investors' ethical reputation

and entrepreneurs' willingness to partner”, Journal of Business Venturing, Forthcoming.

Duffy, R., Fearne, A., Hornibrook, S. Hutchinson, K. and Reid, A. (2013) “Engaging suppliers in

CRM: The role of justice in buyer–supplier relationships”, International Journal of Information

Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, 20–27.

Falkenberg A. and Falkenberg, J. (2009) “Ethics in international value chain networks: The case of

telenor in Bangladesh,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90, No. 3, 355–369.

Fombrun, C.J., & Van Riel, C. (1997) “The reputational landscape”, Corporate Reputation Review,

Vol. 1, No. 1, 5-13.

Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990) “Reputation building and corporate strategy”, Academy of

Management Journal; Vol. 33, No. 2, 233-258.

Ford, D. and McDowell, R. (1999), "Managing business relationships by analyzing the effects and

value of different actions", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, 429-42.

Gadde, L., Huemer, L. and Håkansson, H. (2003) “Strategizing in industrial networks”, Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 5, 357–364.

Goebel, P., Reuter, C., Pibernik, R. and Sichtmann, C. (2010) “The influence of ethical culture on

supplier selection in the context of sustainable sourcing”, International Journal of Production

Economics, Vol. 140, No. 1, 7–17.

Gotsi, M. and Wilson, A. (2001) “Corporate reputation: seeking a definition”, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 24–30.

Greenberg, J. (1987) “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories”, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 9-22.

Greenhouse, S. (2012) “Walmart blocked safety push in bangladesh”, 5.12.2012,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/asia/3-walmart-suppliers-made-goods-in-bangladeshi-

factory-where-112-died-in-fire.html?_r=0

Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., and Lusch, R. F. (2006) “Social exchange in supply chain

relationships: The resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice”, Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, 604–620.

Gundlach, G. and Murphy, P. (1993) “Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing

exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 4, 35–46.

Guo, L., Hsu, S. H., Holton, A. and Jeong, S. H. (2010) A case study of the Foxconn suicides: An

international perspective to framing the sweatshop issue, University of Texas at Austin, USA, The

International Communication Gazette, Vol. 74, No. 5, 484–503.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S. and Mentzer, J. T. (1995) “The structure of commitment in exchange”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 1, 78-92.

Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (Eds.) (1995) Developing relationships in business networks, London:

Routledge.

Halinen, A. and Törnroos, J.-Å. (1998) The role of embeddedness in the evolution of business

networks, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, 187-205.

17

Hawkins, T.G., Pohlen, T.L., and Prybutok, V.R. (2013) “Buyer opportunism in business-to-business

exchange,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42, No. 8, 1181-1410.

Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1992) “Do norms matter in marketing relationship?” Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 56, No. 2, 32–44.

Hill, C. W. L. (1990) “Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for transaction

cost theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, 500-513.

Hillenbrand, C. and Money, K. (2007) “Corporate responsibility and corporate reputation: two

separate concepts or two sides of the same coin?” Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10, 261–277.

Hoejmose, S., Roehrich, J., and Grosvold, J. (2013) “Is doing more, doing better? The relationship

between responsible supply chain management and corporate reputation”, Industrial Marketing

Management, (forthcoming).

Hunt, S. and Vitell, S. (1986) “The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision”.

In Smith, N. C. and Quelch, J. A. (Eds.), Ethics in Marketing, 775–784. Homewood, IL, Irwin.

Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995) Developing relationships in business networks. London,

Routledge.

Ivens, B. S. and Pardo, C. (2010) “Ethical business-to-business exchange: A revised perspective”.

Proceedings of 26th IMP Conference, Budapest, September 2010.

Ivens, B. S. (2004) “How relevant are different forms of relational behavior? An empirical test based

on Macneil's exchange framework”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 5, 300-

309.

Johnston W. and Low, B. (2006) “Relationship equity and switching behavior in the adoption of new

telecommunication services,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, 676-689.

Juvonen, A. (2010) “Finnwatch moittii Iittalan ja Marimekon työoloja”,

http://www.kauppalehti.fi/etusivu/finnwatch+moittii+iittalan+ja+marimekon+tyooloja/201312583171

(Retrieved 2.2.2014)

Kotabe, M., Xavier M., and Hiroshi D. (2003) “Gaining from vertical relationships: knowledge

transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese

automobile industries,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, 293-316.

Kumar, N. (1996) ”The power of trust in manufacturer – retailer relationships”, Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 74, No. 6, 92-106.

Kuusela, S. (2013) "Peruskallio petti. Mitä opimme Nokiasta?", Tietokone 5/2013, 19-27.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of

fairness in social relationship”, In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:

Advances in theory and research, 27–55, New York: Plenum Press.

Lindfelt, L.-L. and Törnroos, J.-Å. (2006) “Ethics and value creation in business research: Comparing

two approaches”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, No. 3-4, 328–351.

Liu, Y., Huang Y., Luo Y. and Zhao, Y. (2012) “How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier

relationship performance?” Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30, No. 5, 355–367.

Luo, Y. (2006) “Toward the micro- and macro-level consequences of interactional justice in

crosscultural joint ventures”, Human Relations, Vol. 8, No. 59, 1019–1047.

18

Luo, Y. (2009) “From gain-sharing to gain-generation: The quest for distributive justice in

international joint ventures”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, 343–356.

MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S. and Hillenbrand, C. (2005) “Reputation in relationships:

measuring experiences, emotions and behaviors”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 214-

232.

Macneil, I. (1980) The new social contract. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Maden, C., Arıkan, E. Telci, E.E. and Kantur, D. (2012) “Linking corpcorate social responsibility to

corporate reputation: A study on understanding behavioral consequences”, Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58, No.12, 655–664.

van Marrewijk, M. (2003) “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between

agency and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44, No. 2-3, 95-105.

Melé, D. (2009) The practice of networking: An ethical Approach, Journal of Business Ethics, No. 90,

No. 4, 487–503.

Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Day, M. and Magnan, G. (2010) “Exploring reputation of B2B

partnerships: Extending the study of reputation from the perception of single firms to the perception

of inter-firm partnerships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39, No. 5, 761-768.

Murphy, P., Laczniak, G. and Wood, G. (2007) “An ethical basis for relationship marketing: A virtue

ethics perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1/2, 37-57.

Mutch, N. and Aitken, R. (2009) “Being fair and being seen to be fair: Corporate reputation and CSR

partnerships”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, 92-98.

Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J. and Bülent, M. (2005) “Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the social

performance-financial performance relationship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No. 9-10,

1184-1198.

Nijhof, A., Cludts, S., Fisscher, O. and Laan A. (2003) “Measuring the implementation of codes of

conduct”. An assessment method on a process approach of the responsible organization”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 45, No. 1-2, 65-78.

Palay, T. (1984), “Comparative institutional economics: The governance of rail freight contracting,”

Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, 265-87.

Paulin, M. and Ferguson, R. (2010) Relational norms in interfirm exchanges: From transactional cost

economics to the service-dominant logic, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 4,

365-405.

Porter, M. (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Nunlee, M. (2003) Reputation as a control mechanism for opportunistic behavior in supply chains.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Raman, A. (2011) “The practice of CSR in B2B networks”, Proceedings of the 27th IMP-conference

Glasgow, Scotland, 2011.

Roberts, P. W. and Dowling, G. R. (2002) “Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial

performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 12, 1077–1093.

Robin, D. (2009) “Toward an applied meaning for ethics in business”, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 89, No. 1, 139–150.

19

Roper, M. (2013) Zara probed over slave labour claims. 03 Apr 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9969494/Zara-probed-over-

slave-labour-claims.html (Retrieved 14.1.2014)

Santana, A., Vaccaro, A. and Wood D. J. (2009) “Ethics and the networked business”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 90, No. 4, 661–681.

Shenkar, O. and Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (1997) “Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An

interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing”, Human Relations, Vol. 50, No. 11, 1361-1381.

Stora Enso: Lapsityövoiman kitkeminen vie vuosia, 10.3.2014,

http://www.hs.fi/talous/Stora+Enso+Lapsity%C3%B6voiman+kitkeminen+vie+vuosia/a13944190039

34 (Retrieved 20.3.2014)

Stora Enson viesti sidosryhmille koskien syytöksiä lapsityövoiman käytöstä Pakistanissa. Maaliskuu

2014. http://www.storaenso.com/lang/finland/news/viesti-sidosryhmille-koskien-

syyt%C3%B6ksi%C3%A4-lapsity%C3%B6voiman-k%C3%A4yt%C3%B6st%C3%A4-pakistanissa

(Retrieved 29.4.2014)

Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., Arenas, D. (2009) “Exploring the nature of the relationship between

CSR and competitiveness”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 1, 57-69.

Wathne, K. and Heide, J. (2000) “Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and

solutions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, No. 4, 36-51.

Williamson, O. (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms markets, relational

contracting. New York: The Free Press.